Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Naturalism

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:00:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Naturalism is a belief that the world can be understood in scientific terms without spiritual or supernatural explanations.

In a debate of mine regarding logic ( http://www.debate.org... ), GodSands made a few ridiculous claims regarding the concept of naturalism:

* If logic is objective then it cannot be a human construction... For a naturalist, only material substances exist, but the laws of logic are not material and they are not a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Therefore if your a naturalist, either the laws of logic are subjective, or they do not exist. If they are subjective then they vary through out each person. However this is contradicting the law of non contradiction.

* Therefore the laws of logic are not a source for knowledge, since knowledge is objective, not subjective. So in a naturalistic universe there should be no laws of logic, but there are, so how is naturalism correct, it must be false for the laws of logic to exist objectively.

I lol'd. You?
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:08:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Seems like something that would go in the DDO Hall of Fame. But then, if one put a GodSands quote there every time something like this happened, we'd fill the thread completely.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:16:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Maybe Godsands is secretly an atheist, trying to turn people away from Christianity by making Christians look ridiculous.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:31:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 6:16:19 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Maybe Godsands is secretly an atheist, trying to turn people away from Christianity by making Christians look ridiculous.

In that case he'd be brilliant... hmm...
President of DDO
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:35:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*points to my sig*

I one-upped you.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:59:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 6:35:40 PM, Yvette wrote:
*points to my sig*

I one-upped you.

That's nothing... Check this out...

"We have to believe that the laws of logic are a reliable source for knowledge. If we have to believe that the laws of logic are a reliable source for knowledge then they aren't a reliable source for knowledge. To have knowledge we have to know things, not believe in things. So the laws of logic cannot be a reliable source for knowledge."

http://www.debate.org...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 6:59:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 6:08:23 PM, mongeese wrote:
Seems like something that would go in the DDO Hall of Fame. But then, if one put a GodSands quote there every time something like this happened, we'd fill the thread completely.

I never thought I'd say this but... you're right.

Lol.
President of DDO
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 7:09:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

That was pretty clever, I think I'm going to sig it.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:03:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 6:00:59 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I lol'd. You?

my theory: he came across the transcendental argument for god somewhere, got it all garbled in his head, and then vomited it back onto ddo.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:04:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:03:45 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 6:00:59 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I lol'd. You?

my theory: he came across the transcendental argument for god somewhere, got it all garbled in his head, and then vomited it back onto ddo.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2010 4:39:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 6:00:59 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Naturalism is a belief that the world can be understood in scientific terms without spiritual or supernatural explanations.

In a debate of mine regarding logic ( http://www.debate.org... ), GodSands made a few ridiculous claims regarding the concept of naturalism:

* If logic is objective then it cannot be a human construction... For a naturalist, only material substances exist, but the laws of logic are not material and they are not a result of chemical reactions in the brain. Therefore if your a naturalist, either the laws of logic are subjective, or they do not exist. If they are subjective then they vary through out each person. However this is contradicting the law of non contradiction.

* Therefore the laws of logic are not a source for knowledge, since knowledge is objective, not subjective. So in a naturalistic universe there should be no laws of logic, but there are, so how is naturalism correct, it must be false for the laws of logic to exist objectively.

I lol'd. You?

I don't know if he worded it right, but that sounds like an attempt at the argument from reason.

For those of you who don't know, this examines the epistemological commitments of naturalists (the Atheists, grrr!). A mentalistic worldview is supposed to be out of reach, and the argument would lead to the conclusion that the very practice of science is without basis under a naturalistic worldview.

The argument runs as follows:

1. If naturalism is true, then meaning is indeterminate.

2. Meaning is determinate (a presupposition of reason, science, and the very attempt at refuting this argument).

3. Therefore, naturalism is false.

The major principle this all would run on is that even though there are correlations between the physical and mental, there is still a logico-conceptual distinction that remains.

The naturalist is faced with a pickle when considering intentional states, and that's what the proponent of the argument is counting on.