I lack a belief in Naturalism / Do I have a Burden proof?

[Willamena]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

If you understand Naturalism as in that everything be represented accurately then the question makes sense, because the burden of proof is about truth, not natural mechanisms.

In trying to divine the divine ways, the Greeks explored natural laws, as there was no distinction for them between the divinity behind the veil and the world in front of it. Divinity was considered revealed in the understanding of a new law. "Nature's mechanisms" are god's mysterious ways. The more you discover of the way things are, the better you understand divinity. In that manner, a natural description or explanation, one that does not include extraordinary divine intervention, is the most accurate representation, hence the most truthful.

Truth is not encapsulated in man's words. It is not captured by words, it is not spoken in words. Truth is in the way things are, apart from man's words and ideas. When a man speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he only approximates what is (depending on word choice, language structure, and influencial ideas). So when a man makes an assertion about the truth, it automatically acquires a burden of proof, the weight of responsibility to be that represenation of what is. Your belief about things does not impact that burden.

As for your second question, the evidence for natualism is the history of science.

 

[HonestJoe]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

A burden of proof for a belief, no. There's no reason for anyone else to give your belief a second thought unless you present some kind of reasoning behind it though.

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

Evidence yes, definitive proof no, like pretty much everything in practice, certain like all similar philosophical concepts. Beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence currently available is generally the best we can ever do.

 

[Clara Tea]

God wants freedom of choice. Freedom of choice won't exist if everyone sees a gigantic hand reaching down from heaven to change things. Thus, for the skeptics, everything is supposed to have a natural reason.

Skeptics (atheists) are supposed to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth many millions of years ago, which is supposed to contradict the bible.

Free choice is supposed to separate the good from the bad (heaven from hell).

 

[Michael16548]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

I don't even understand the point of the question. What evidence are you looking for? How do you want to talk about it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

Nope, you don't have a burden of proof for your lack of belief. If I were advocating for something that you lack belief in they I would have the burden of proof.

 

[QuestioningMind]

God wants freedom of choice. Freedom of choice won't exist if everyone sees a gigantic hand reaching down from heaven to change things. Thus, for the skeptics, everything is supposed to have a natural reason.

Skeptics (atheists) are supposed to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth many millions of years ago, which is supposed to contradict the bible.

Free choice is supposed to separate the good from the bad (heaven from hell).

I've never understood the argument that if God were to provide evidence for his existence that it would someone eliminate freedom of choice in humans. Does having evidence for the existence of things eliminate freedom of choice in any other area of a person's life? The reality is that the choices we freely make are almost always based upon the evidence available for making that choice. The fact is that in virtually every aspect of a person's life a lack of evidence for something almost always leads to a lack of belief in that said something. Why would choosing to believe in some god being be any different?

 

[leroy]

Why do you not believe in naturalism?

.

Because there is no evidence for naturalism

 

[leroy]

I've never understood the argument that if God were to provide evidence for his existence that it would someone eliminate freedom of choice in humans. Does having evidence for the existence of things eliminate freedom of choice in any other area of a person's life? The reality is that the choices we freely make are almost always based upon the evidence available for making that choice. The fact is that in virtually every aspect of a person's life a lack of evidence for something almost always leads to a lack of belief in that said something. Why would choosing to believe in some god being be any different?

That in red (above) is a strawman…….I havent seen any theist making such a claim….

What theist say is that God cant “force you” to belive in him , because that would eliminate free will.

The claim is that if you look at the evidence for God with an open hart and an open mind, and with the willingness to actually makeing an effort of understanding the argument, then you should conclude that God exist and become a Christian.

 

[leroy]

I don't even understand the point of the question. What evidence are you looking for? How do you want to talk about it?

I don’t know, you are the one who seems to be asserting naturalism, so what evidence for naturalism do you have?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because there is no evidence for naturalism

If it's in response to a claim that there is evidence, you don't have the burden of proof. If you're making the claim to someone else first, then you do have the burden of proof. Whomever makes the claim doesn't depend on the other person to counteract it unless there is support in which to base their counter opinion from.

 

[Michael16548]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

Ok I'll write it otherwise I can't give you any proof just like you can't give proof that god exists. the reason is therefore very simple. it doesn't matter what I write or anyone else, when you can answer everything because it's God's will. Example: When you drop a pencil on the ground, it falls, it's a natural phenomenon, but you can say that it doesn't fall because of the "natural mechanism", but because it's God's will, therefore, your question doesn't make sense.

God wants freedom of choice. Freedom of choice won't exist if everyone sees a gigantic hand reaching down from heaven to change things. Thus, for the skeptics, everything is supposed to have a natural reason.

Skeptics (atheists) are supposed to believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth many millions of years ago, which is supposed to contradict the bible.

Free choice is supposed to separate the good from the bad (heaven from hell).

Ok

I've never understood the argument that if God were to provide evidence for his existence that it would someone eliminate freedom of choice in humans. Does having evidence for the existence of things eliminate freedom of choice in any other area of a person's life? The reality is that the choices we freely make are almost always based upon the evidence available for making that choice. The fact is that in virtually every aspect of a person's life a lack of evidence for something almost always leads to a lack of belief in that said something. Why would choosing to believe in some god being be any different?

I don’t know, you are the one who seems to be asserting naturalism, so what evidence for naturalism do you have?

ok i will play your game. If you take a pencil and drop it, it will fall (this is a natural mechanism that we call gravity) you can try it

 

[QuestioningMind]

That in red (above) is a strawman…….I havent seen any theist making such a claim….

What theist say is that God cant “force you” to belive in him , because that would eliminate free will.

The claim is that if you look at the evidence for God with an open hart and an open mind, and with the willingness to actually makeing an effort of understanding the argument, then you should conclude that God exist and become a Christian.

Did you read the post I was responding to? Clara Tea is a theist and she most definitely DID make such a claim.

God wants freedom of choice. Freedom of choice won't exist if everyone sees a gigantic hand reaching down from heaven to change things. Thus, for the skeptics, everything is supposed to have a natural reason.

Seeing a giant hand reaching down from the sky would be providing evidence... not FORCING someone to believe. So are you claiming that Clara Tea is a strawman or that Clara Tea isn't a REAL theist?

 

[leroy]

ok i will play your game. If you take a pencil and drop it, it will fall (this is a natural mechanism that we call gravity) you can try it

That proves that something’s are caused by natural mechanisms, but it doesn’t proof that everything is caused by natural mechanisms.

Any evidence for naturalism?

*understanding naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms.

 

[leroy]

Did you read the post I was responding to? Clara Tea is a theist and she most definitely DID make such a claim.

God wants freedom of choice. Freedom of choice won't exist if everyone sees a gigantic hand reaching down from heaven to change things. Thus, for the skeptics, everything is supposed to have a natural reason.

Seeing a giant hand reaching down from the sky would be providing evidence... not FORCING someone to believe. So are you claiming that Clara Tea is a strawman or that Clara Tea isn't a REAL theist?

Ok I was not aware of the claim made by Clara (my mistake)............. and I am on your side, the argument made by this theist is very bad

 

[Michael16548]

Did you read the post I was responding to? Clara Tea is a theist and she most definitely DID make such a claim.

God wants freedom of choice. Freedom of choice won't exist if everyone sees a gigantic hand reaching down from heaven to change things. Thus, for the skeptics, everything is supposed to have a natural reason.

Seeing a giant hand reaching down from the sky would be providing evidence... not FORCING someone to believe. So are you claiming that Clara Tea is a strawman or that Clara Tea isn't a REAL theist?

That proves that something’s are caused by natural mechanisms, but it doesn’t proof that everything is caused by natural mechanisms.

Any evidence for naturalism?

*understanding naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms.

ohh so you don't understand what naturalism is so your question is again pointless

 

[Polymath257]

Naturalism is the view that everything (not just sometings) has a natural cause………….the fact that somethings are “natural” doesn’t prove that everything is natural

I'm going to nitpick a bit. Naturalism would be the contention that everything that has a cause has a natural cause. it may well be that there are events with no cause at all.

Do you have any evidence for naturalism?

Yes, we do. The fact that everything we have ever found a cause for has a natural cause. This is in spite of extensive searching for non-natural causes.

Of course, this is the usual problem of induction: we cannot generalize from specifics to a generality. But it does remain evidence that is not contested as yet.

Now I would like to know how you propose we can find evidence for something supernatural using natural techniques we have available to us!

Ohhh shifting the burden proof?

If you make no claim to the existence of a supernatural, then there is no need to have a proof either way. If, however, you *do* claim there to be a supernatural, then there is a burden of proof on the one making that claim.

Also, nobody claims you need to limit yourself to natural techniques: only to techniques that can be tested (to see if they are wrong).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Do you have any evidence for naturalism?

You DO NOT have a burden of proof for not believing in "naturalism."

You could falsify what you're calling "naturalism" by producing or demonstrating something that is "unnatural", or has "unnatural" causes. Obviously this is a pretty tough task - which may leave the idea of "naturalism" in the same category as God - that being among those things that are "unfalsifiable." Which is fine - "naturalism" is a pretty hyperbolic idea, and would assume that anything and everything we come across is among the category "natural." I don't know that we can definitively state that unless the term natural" has a very succinct meaning that encompasses anything and everything we can now or might in the future discover - which is itself a tall order.

So there it is - I can easily admit that "naturalism" can be denied, and there are no consequences to that denial or disbelief, except what one might incur on themselves when trying to express various ideas without that as a starting point in some arenas of discussion/thought. Oh well. Now... can you display the same nonchalance with respect to anyone's denial of your ideas of God? I highly, highly doubt you can. It would, indeed, be a shock and an amazement.

 

[McBell]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?


Obviously I am being sarcastic, I am using the same type of fallasious reasoning that atheist use when they say “I don’t assert that God doesn’t exist, I simply lack a belif in God” (therefore I don’t have a burden proof)

We can all use creative semantic games to avoid the burden proof , but the truth is that we all have to provide justification for our world views

Beliefs have burden of proof?
Nope.

CLAIMS have burden of proof.
Yes, even claims about beliefs have burden of proof.

Beyond that...

Now, what is your justification for your view that Naturalism is unbelievable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well no. It would be ridiculous to ask of anybody to prove that they doubt something. We might ask for precision as to why or what precisely makes you doubt and we could later judge if your doubt is reasonnable or could be dismissed, but you don't have to prove a doubt.



You can read the following words. That's a proof of naturalism. In fact, there is not a single being, thing or event as of now that isn't natural so far or that isn't investigated using some form of scientific enquiry and method.

No, everything is not natural according to this definition of natural: existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind. These sentences are not natural since they are caused by members of humankind.
So what do you mean by naturalism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good. No problem being skeptical and no problem with saying you lack a belief. No burden of proof that I can see.

Now, where do we go from here?

If the goal is to understand what is around us, we need to come up with methods for doing so (If not, ignore this). What do you propose?

Well, my goal is to understand us and what is around us. So you are not a part of the world since the world is around you, right? So what do you exist?