Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Naturalism is self defeating. True of False?

andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:37:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM, andymcstab wrote:
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?

Well that argument isn't even valid. It follows no form of deductive logic that exists.....
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 11:52:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM, andymcstab wrote:
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?

I don't even think this post was entirely coherent. There wasn't much of a logical flow from point to point. You might want to work out where your reasoning is coming from, going and ending.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 12:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is a kind of deductive logical flow, but i am having trouble showing it explicitly.

The study of the natural world supposes it is coherent. T/F?
There is never a point when something incoherent can be shown to be natural. T/F?
Coherency is reliant on Human cognition. T/F?
The only way to actually distinguish a natural from supernatural claim, is through explanation. T/F?
Explanation relies on human cognition. T/F?
Whether something can be shown to be natural, is entirely dependent on human cognition. T/F?
If something exists but is beyond human comprehension, it cannot be explained as natural. T/F?
The naturalist assumes that nothing is not natural. T/F?
The naturalist assumes that nothing is beyond human comprehension. T/F?
This effectively defeats naturalism. T/F?

This is more of an exercise than a debate. I just want to hear peoples reasoning whether or not these things are true. I have a picture in mind but i am having trouble fjording the rivers.. and just want to see if it can or cannot be done.
andymcstab
Posts: 308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 12:38:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
for consistencies sake, that second to last point should read 'cognition', rather than 'comprehension'
MartinKauai
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 3:16:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM, andymcstab wrote:
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?

First off, let's assume this is True. The real meat of the argument is that a naturalists ability to decipher truth is dependent upon fallible cognition. However, the same goes for theists and everyone else on earth.

"The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain."

Naturalists do not defiantly claim they can explain everything, it is a way of looking at the universe. For example, if god could somehow be discovered and accounted for, in some other space-time and realm or dimension, then he would be re-interpreted as a part of the natural universe. Therefore there is simply no need to make up other "supernatural" planes of existence. Even if naturalists did operate in the manner you suggest, the theist is also readily guilty of claiming they can explain everything, supernatural or not, as they too possess fallible minds.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM, andymcstab wrote:
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?

There needs to be a third choice, something like WTF.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Subutai
Posts: 3,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM, andymcstab wrote:
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?

Your argument has no sense of logical structure. Most of the premises aren't valid, and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises even assuming that they were true.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 9:23:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 3:16:39 PM, MartinKauai wrote:
At 3/19/2014 11:34:14 AM, andymcstab wrote:
What quality of nature must necessarily exist for us to study it? I'll tell you: coherency.

1: Naturalism presupposes coherency
2: By this presupposition of naturalism, there is never a point when something can be shown as natural, while being incoherent.
3: Coherency is dependent upon human cognition
4: The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain, because nothing exists which is actually incoherent thus cannot be explained.
5: The naturalist endows himself with the ability to explain everything that exists
6: All apart from this ability he endows himself with.
7: Naturalist defeats himself.

True or false?

First off, let's assume this is True. The real meat of the argument is that a naturalists ability to decipher truth is dependent upon fallible cognition. However, the same goes for theists and everyone else on earth.

"The naturalist defies that there is nothing that human cognition cannot explain."

Naturalists do not defiantly claim they can explain everything, it is a way of looking at the universe. For example, if god could somehow be discovered and accounted for, in some other space-time and realm or dimension, then he would be re-interpreted as a part of the natural universe. Therefore there is simply no need to make up other "supernatural" planes of existence. Even if naturalists did operate in the manner you suggest, the theist is also readily guilty of claiming they can explain everything, supernatural or not, as they too possess fallible minds.

" For example, if god could somehow be discovered and accounted for, in some other space-time and realm or dimension, then he would be re-interpreted as a part of the natural universe."

Interesting. You do know Spinoza argyed that God was part of Nature. "Deus sive Natura," is a quote attributed to him.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.