Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

[Iacchus]

Hmm, odd like chloropyll containing algae creating oxygen and driving 90% of existing life forms into extinction?

And there probably weren't any sentient beings around at that time either? Is it possible that there wasn't much diversification at the time?

Odd like the fact that the savvanah is Africa has very few trees, because the elephants like to tear them down?

And who denuded the landscape so much to where this eventually became a problem?

Odd like a weasel killing food it doesn't eat right away?

And yet we don't see weasels over-running the planet do we? ... unless of course you want to refer to people as weasels.

Did you know that the chimps actualy kill animals, and that deers and other unglates eat the heads of baby birds?

Would you say the problem is wide-spread?

Why is it that species are perfectly willing to drive out other species?

And yet why does it all tend to balance itself out? ... that is until lately.

I was born of my mother. How did you get here?

How did I get here? Well, I honestly can't say that I remember? At first I was completely unaware, but now I am. It's almost as if my mother had "nothing" to do with it.

 

[Atlas]

Iacchus,

I'm still thinking about apes and harmony and Fallen Man.

I'll bet the Apes would have a lot of stories. After all, living in harmony with nature doesn't mean you are not going to have your tree burned down in the next big fire.

I wonder if they would tell stories of the Ascent of Apes where the bad apes stayed on trhe ground and the good apes were taught by angels to climb trees.

Their jungle would be filled with demons of the night, if only they had a language to write with.

I think that's the key... Men could write and what they wrote about was their unhappy state of cold, hunger and not knowing what it was all about.

Luckily they got it right first time under a desert God. We're all pretty lucky there.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Yahweh's Proof for Naturalism

Yes, there's no denying that the natural world does exist. So what? I think even Creationists would agree with you on this one.

And neither do I see any other plausible explanation for its being brought about except through evolution. So? All you've done is explain is the processess of the natural world.

Now what I would like to know is why mankind doesn't seem to fit too well into the natural scheme of things, you know, like he was some kind of evolutionary freak?

What do you mean mankind does not fit too well in the natural scheme of things?

The human fossil record is fairly complete, it shows that humans evolve just like all other animals. There is plenty of information to learn about human evolution on BecomingHuman.org.

And here, we need to look no further than the apes, our closest relatives. Why do they seem perfectly capable of living in harmony with nature and we don't? Doesn't that seem the least bit odd?

Apes do not build weapons of mass destruction, they have very very primitive system of medicine.

Humans appear to live out of harmony with nature for one simple fact: Our technology progresses.

In the next 1,000,000 years, if humans are still alive, we will most likely look nothing at all like we do today. In the past 1,000,000 year, humans today would have little resemblance to the humans of the past. Hence, humans are still succeptible to natural processes as other animals, we live in perfect harmony with nature (an argument can be made to say that our technology is in harmony with nature as all materials needed to construct and further it can all be reduced down to its origins somewhere in nature).

Hmm ... Could it be that we've arrived here by some other possible means?

In which case I would refer you to the Book of Genesis for a possible solution.

Other possible solutions include the Raelian Movement (Note: That quote on the front page is not from myself) or other such extraterrestrial religions.

However, none of those "other possible means" are consistent with the information we have from science. And as those other interpretations of human origins are inconsistent with science, they ought to be rejected.

There really is nothing more "special" about a human than any other animals...

 

[Mr Sensible]

It's from the definition of the word "metaphysical" itself.

1) The intersection of the physical and the metaphysical is, by definition, the empty set.

2) It is only reasonable to establish beliefs (hypotheses, theories, whatever) on observations made of the thing we are establishing beliefs about.

3) Everything we can observe is physical.

From 1 and 3, we have:
4) Nothing we can observe is metaphysical.

From 2 and 4, we have:
C) It is not reasonable to establish beliefs about the metaphysical.

"2" is false. "2" only follows if we can indeed make observations of the thing in question. Something could be non-observable, and yet it might still be reasonable to have a belief, hypothesis or theory about it.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I agree with Beleth that metaphysics (using the definition he gave) cannot be based on science. Indeed, the reasons Beleth gave are precisely why I think that metaphysics is utterly meaningless.

Since the definition of metaphysics Yahweh was using includes both Beleth's definition of metaphysics and the observable world, I would also have to agree that it is rational to base such beliefs on science, and irrational to base them on anything else.

Incidentally, I think that what Yahweh has presented essentially amounts to the statement that our view of the world should be based on our observations of it, and logical analysis of those observations. In other words, our world view should be epistemological, rather than metaphysical (using Beleth's definition), and should be based on the epistemology of science.


ReasonableDoubt,

Conclusion: It is rational to believe in Naturalism, or furthermore that Naturalism is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For quite some time, it was rational to "believe in" the Bohr Model, ...

Your very phrasing of your statement betrays the hidden fallacy. What does it mean to say you believe in a model? It means only that you think that the model is an accurate model for the phenomena it models. It does not mean, as you seem to be implying, that you believe that the model is exactly how things are.

It is never rational to believe that a scientific model is the absolute truth.


Iacchus,

Now what I would like to know is why mankind doesn't seem to fit too well into the natural scheme of things, you know, like he was some kind of evolutionary freak? And here, we need to look no further than the apes, our closest relatives. Why do they seem perfectly capable of living in harmony with nature and we don't? Doesn't that seem the least bit odd?

Not odd at all. For one thing, humans have lived in harmony with nature for almost the entire time we have existed. It is only recently that we have begun to do otherwise. We are by far the most intelligent species on the Earth, and that has allowed us to accomplish things no other species has. But unless you have some evidence that this intelligence of ours did not come about through the process of evolution, this in no way constitutes a reason to believe that we are, as you put it, evolutionary freaks. It certainly does not constitute evidence that some agency other than evolution was involved in our development.

Hmm ... Could it be that we've arrived here by some other possible means?

Possibly. But unless you have some evidence to indicate that this is the case, all the current evidence seems to indicate that we got here through the process of evolution.

In which case I would refer you to the Book of Genesis for a possible solution.

What is described in the Book of Genesis is not possible at all, much less a possible solution to this imaginary problem you seem to think exists.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Beleth]

"2" is false. "2" only follows if we can indeed make observations of the thing in question. Something could be non-observable, and yet it might still be reasonable to have a belief, hypothesis or theory about it.

Don't just nay-say me. Present your counterargument, or at least a counterexample.

 

[Mr Sensible]

Don't just nay-say me. Present your counterargument, or at least a counterexample.

Are we talking about indirect observation as well as direct observation? Are we talking about observable in the practical sense or observable in principle?

If you're talking about direct observation only, then we have the example of something like electrons, gravitation, and many other unobservables which play indispensible roles in our theories, but which cannot be directly observed.

Or perhaps you would include indirect observation? In that case what about those things which could in principle be directly observed, but practically cannot be? For example planets around other stars? But surely we can have well grounded beliefs in extra solar planets?

Or perhaps you simply mean either directly or indirectly observable which should be potentially observable in principle?

But if some thing is practically impossible to observe, and even if we did observe it, it was only indirect observation, would it then be reasonable to "establish beliefs, hypotheses, theories, whatever" about this thing?

Perhaps you would agree with this and claim that in addition to the metaphysical, there are also many potential observables which we cannot "establish beliefs, theories or hypotheses" about. And if you concede these observables might well exist, you are then committed to the idea that many metaphysical things may exist, no?

Just because they may exist does not mean to say they are likely to exist though.

 

[Dancing David]

And there probably weren't any sentient beings around at that time either? Is it possible that there wasn't much diversification at the time?

Is it possible that there was , I don't really know, but I can agrue that there was about as much if not more biodiversity as there is now. Most of what would be called life is very old. And in truth the anaerobic bacteria are still all over the place today, there domain is just less than it might have been had oxygen came into play. And I have met people who are into biology and atsronomy and they say that the oxtgen arrived at our planet and then the algae took advantage of it. But others like to talk about the possibility of the unintended consequence of releasing oxygen.
The unknowable truth as I see it is that humanity is just a tiny blip in the geologic record so far, humanity is likely to be 100,000 to 60,000 years old as a species.
What our species has done is the same as all species do, anthrocentrism is inherent in the nature of our perception. We as humans may feel as though we are out of balance, but a skyscraper is about as cool as a beaver damn or a bee hive.

And who denuded the landscape so much to where this eventually became a problem?

Problem, who said there was a problem? Elephants change thier enviroment, there are also places where elephants live in jungle.

As I recall, ten years ago the ethologists were suggesting that the elephants and the amount of rainfall are what made the savvanah that we see today. I will grant you that there are deserts, in certain areas of the world, that seem to have sprung up after the developement of agriculture.
There are most likely many reasons the savvanah exists, elephants effect the lanscape.

And yet we don't see weasels over-running the planet do we? ... unless of course you want to refer to people as weasels.

There are plenty of species that overrun other species, humans are in no way any different in that regard.
Weasels are just an example like the woverine of an animal that 'kills without reason'. Probably foxes as well.

Would you say the problem is wide-spread?

Depends on which problem, worse things have happened than humankind's arrival on the scene. We can probably make it much worse if we chose to. I don't think, and hope , that we as a species do not reduce the planet to the point where we really, really , really screw things up.

And yet why does it all tend to balance itself out? ... that is until lately.


'skim milk masquerades as cream'... appearances are decieving, I think that there are things as a species that we need to consider as soon as possible.
The balance is there, I do believe in isotropy, while biodiversity is less than what it was pre Cambrian, the 'balance' is always there.

How did I get here? Well, I honestly can't say that I remember? At first I was completely unaware, but now I am. It's almost as if my mother had "nothing" to do with it.

Hmm, nothing, he?

I don't believe that the forces which gave rise to humans is any different than any other ceature that we see.

 

[Iacchus]

Hmm, nothing, he?

I don't believe that the forces which gave rise to humans is any different than any other ceature that we see.

What gives "birth" to consciousness?

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

Not odd at all. For one thing, humans have lived in harmony with nature for almost the entire time we have existed. It is only recently that we have begun to do otherwise. We are by far the most intelligent species on the Earth, and that has allowed us to accomplish things no other species has. But unless you have some evidence that this intelligence of ours did not come about through the process of evolution, this in no way constitutes a reason to believe that we are, as you put it, evolutionary freaks. It certainly does not constitute evidence that some agency other than evolution was involved in our development.

Only recently? Would you say about the last 10,000 years? And how long have we really existed on this planet as a species?

Possibly. But unless you have some evidence to indicate that this is the case, all the current evidence seems to indicate that we got here through the process of evolution.

I have been able to ascertain the fact that I have a soul. How about yourself?

What is described in the Book of Genesis is not possible at all, much less a possible solution to this imaginary problem you seem to think exists.

Dr. Stupid

Is it possible for the Gardner to transplant His favorite plant/hybrid from the garden and out into the field? Why is this not possible?

 

[Atlas]

What gives "birth" to consciousness?

To chime in -

I believe that while most creatures makes noises, the humans evolved progressively agile tongues. Using them we could make finer and more articulate sounds.

Eventually those sounds were widespread enough to be considered words in the sense that they stood for concepts.

Every human concept has a word associated. Concept formation is the birth of conciousness.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Iacchus,

Not odd at all. For one thing, humans have lived in harmony with nature for almost the entire time we have existed. It is only recently that we have begun to do otherwise. We are by far the most intelligent species on the Earth, and that has allowed us to accomplish things no other species has. But unless you have some evidence that this intelligence of ours did not come about through the process of evolution, this in no way constitutes a reason to believe that we are, as you put it, evolutionary freaks. It certainly does not constitute evidence that some agency other than evolution was involved in our development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only recently? Would you say about the last 10,000 years? And how long have we really existed on this planet as a species?

It is only in the last few centuries (mostly in the last 100 years) that we have actually become a significant threat to the Earth's ecosystem. And mankind has been around for (if I am not mistaken) something like 100,000 years or more.

But as my post explained, how recent it was has no real relevance. The point is that it is our intelligence that makes us unique. So unless you have some solid evidence to indicate that our intelligence did not develop through the natural process of evolution, there is no reason to imagine some other agency is involved.

Possibly. But unless you have some evidence to indicate that this is the case, all the current evidence seems to indicate that we got here through the process of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been able to ascertain the fact that I have a soul. How about yourself?

I have never even heard a coherent definition of what a soul is supposed to be. No, I have not in any way ascertained the fact that I have one. And I would bet dollars to donuts that the reasoning by which you have reached that conclusion is not sound.

What is described in the Book of Genesis is not possible at all, much less a possible solution to this imaginary problem you seem to think exists.

Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it possible for the Gardner to transplant His favorite plant/hybrid from the garden and out into the field? Why is this not possible?

I said that what is described in the Book of Genesis is not possible. Your wishful metaphorical interpretations of that book come from you, not from the Bible. I will not make any claims about the possibility of fantasies you have dreamed up in your mind. At least, not until I hear in detail what those fantasies are.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus,

I have never even heard a coherent definition of what a soul is supposed to be. No, I have not in any way ascertained the fact that I have one. And I would bet dollars to donuts that the reasoning by which you have reached that conclusion is not sound.

If you got rid of all the matter which comprises who you are physically, and examined the remaining engery field or pattern, this would be your soul which, if you could see, would probably look identical to your physical body.

Now as far as what this energy field entails, it's your consciousness.

I said that what is described in the Book of Genesis is not possible. Your wishful metaphorical interpretations of that book come from you, not from the Bible. I will not make any claims about the possibility of fantasies you have dreamed up in your mind. At least, not until I hear in detail what those fantasies are.

Dr. Stupid

Then what are you saying, God doesn't exist?

 

[Mercutio]

What gives "birth" to consciousness?

Not that you will understand it, but here is a discussion on it.

I have been able to ascertain the fact that I have a soul. How about yourself?

I am happy for you that you believe this. Your belief in it, however, does not quite merit the label "fact". I'd ask you for proof.....but I have seen your proofs before.

 

[Iacchus]

To chime in -

I believe that while most creatures makes noises, the humans evolved progressively agile tongues. Using them we could make finer and more articulate sounds.

Do you mean like serpents' tongues? Now where have I heard that before?

Eventually those sounds were widespread enough to be considered words in the sense that they stood for concepts.

Yes, but what arranged them into concepts?

Every human concept has a word associated. Concept formation is the birth of conciousness.

So which came first? The concept or the word?

 

[Iacchus]

Not that you will understand it, but here is a discussion on it.

But what your'e suggesting is that I don't have the grounds to stand on. In which case I say who cares?

I am happy for you that you believe this. Your belief in it, however, does not quite merit the label "fact". I'd ask you for proof.....but I have seen your proofs before.

Now just because you don't have the same mother and father as I do, doesn't mean my mother and father don't exist, only that they don't exist as a mother and father to you.

 

[Mercutio]

But what your'e suggesting is that I don't have the grounds to stand on. In which case I say who cares?

You had a question about consciousness. I pointed to a place to learn. You do, you don't, I really don't care. I suggested that you would not read it and understand it---prove me wrong. Read it, understand it, comment on it, embarrass me publicly, whatever. Knock yourself out.

Now just because you don't have the same mother and father as I do, doesn't mean my mother and father don't exist, only that they don't exist as a mother and father to you.

And this has nothing at all to do with a soul....but then, I should be used to the non-sequitor from you. If only evidence of a soul was as easy as evidence of a mother and father...then you might have something...

 

[Iacchus]

You had a question about consciousness. I pointed to a place to learn. You do, you don't, I really don't care. I suggested that you would not read it and understand it---prove me wrong. Read it, understand it, comment on it, embarrass me publicly, whatever. Knock yourself out.

Isn't it possible to ask a question in the rhetorical sense, for example, "What gives birth to conscioussness? Now what makes "you" think I don't understand what it is?

And this has nothing at all to do with a soul....but then, I should be used to the non-sequitor from you. If only evidence of a soul was as easy as evidence of a mother and father...then you might have something...

No, it has something to do with ascertaining what a fact is.

 

[Mercutio]

Isn't it possible to ask a question in the rhetorical sense, for example, "What gives birth to conscioussness? Now what makes "you" think I don't understand what it is?

Now, is that a rhetorical question as well, or should I answer it, "every word you write"?

 

[Beleth]

Are we talking about indirect observation as well as direct observation? Are we talking about observable in the practical sense or observable in principle?

We are talking about observation - i.e. the ability to collect data about an object. It doesn't necessarily have to be visual.

If you're talking about direct observation only, then we have the example of something like electrons, gravitation, and many other unobservables which play indispensible roles in our theories, but which cannot be directly observed.

Gravitation is incredibly observable. We can observe the effect a single electron has on its environment, and make hypotheses about its properties based on those observations.

But if some thing is practically impossible to observe, and even if we did observe it, it was only indirect observation, would it then be reasonable to "establish beliefs, hypotheses, theories, whatever" about this thing?

It is clear that you and I have very different definitions of the word "observable." By "observable" I mean "able to collect data on." If we can collect data on a thing, then it is reasonable to establish beliefs etc. about that thing. If we can't, it is not.

Perhaps you would agree with this and claim that in addition to the metaphysical, there are also many potential observables which we cannot "establish beliefs, theories or hypotheses" about.

Again I must ask you: like what?