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

[epronovost]

@epronovost

??? I didn't say any of that stuff you quoted me as saying ???

??? Are you expecting me to ... uh... respond to things I didn't say ???

Mistakes in the edition.

 

[Michael16548]

Well, as long as you understand the limits of methodological naturalism and these limits to science, you can use science all you want: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I have to apologize first but I read it wrong so I get angry for no reason. I'm sorry.

Science doesn't make moral judgments
“Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience that is associated with actual or potential tissue damage. “The intensity of physical pain can range from mild localized discomfort to agony. If this sentence does not determine that it is morally wrong to cause pain, then we have a completely different point of view.

Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
I have to agree, but honestly it seems to me that as humanity we are beginning to fall to the same level.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
I have honestly conflicting feelings I think most of the knowledge was to improve life and then misused (dynamite was invented to help miners) so it self its tell you how to use it but if you choose use it wrong it not fault of science

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
I am very sure that science says that the supernatural does not exist.
But when I read it again I fully understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Nakosis]

This sentence for its meaning is objectively testable yet it is a part of the universe. So it is supernatural, right?

It's information. The process of transfer, storage and even evaluation are all physical processes.

 

[shunyadragon]

So are the subjective a part of the physical word? And if not, then where does it exist? Or is the world objective?

The physical world is objective, and mental states can be explained by objective verifiable evidence of the physical world.

 

[shunyadragon]

This sentence for its meaning is objectively testable yet it is a part of the universe. So it is supernatural, right?

It is part of the physical universe that can be objectively tested, therefore it is not supernatural.

The supernatural by definition is beyond our physical universe, subjective and therefore cannot be tested.

 

[Nakosis]

All of our existence is not physical. Some of it is mental. E.g. that I say no, the physical world is not everything, is mental and have no objective meaning, because meaning is subjective.
If everything must be observable or testable using scientific instruments, the the former claim is not such one. Because it meaning is not observable nor understandable using scientific instruments.
You can see as overserve or understand through scientific instruments the meaning of this sentence.

AI systems are capable of determining meaning. For example you can download the entire Wikipedia into an AI system and it will be able to determine the meaning of language.

The meaning that it determines will be subjective to the quantity of data provided to it. It maybe a more complex process for humans but I don't see this meaning any non-physical process is required.

Maybe you mean a AI system cannot feel love. Feelings are just a biofeedback mechanism which uses chemicals to induce a physical response in our bodies.

It is not a very good system of feedback, it is not very precise. I suspect an AI system will be able to develop better solutions, better answers without it.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Yes, you can use creative semantic games to avoid your burden to make a constructive argument to provide for an alternative argument supported by a meaningful hypothesis other that the overwhelming evidence supporting Naturalism beyond Methodological Naturalism.

Yes you have the burden of presenting a coherent argument.

Still waiting . . .

 

[Bear Wild]

No, the world can't be reduced to evidence. That I can deny that, is evidence of the limit of evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

The difference you are sighting is the decision making of humans where belief becomes reality not based on evidence but on what feels right to the individual. These belief's have natural explanations of how they are generated but the beliefs themselves do not require evidence. Morality is a decision made by an individual but its basis is linked to how human brains work including emotional signals influenced by theory of mind, mirror neurons and a dorsolateral prefrontal cortex exerting it influence over a ventral medial cortex to determine the decision on what is moral. So the decision has naturalistic explanations but the statement of what is considered moral is not. The same is with aesthetics, what is considered pleasing or beautiful has foundations in the neurologic connections and associations and thus still naturalistic but the decision of what is beautiful or pleasing is not. The same is for how to use science and whether you believe in the supernatural is the same.

So the decisions that humans make on any of these topics have naturalistic mechanism at work but the final conclusions that an individual makes does not have to have a naturalistic explanation. That does not mean however that what we know about this world is not still imbedded in the natural world. The very natural structures and networks that make us social have created patterns of beliefs that do not need any evidence to support them. The underlying connection in our brains causing the patterns driving these beliefs are still naturalistic.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Do you have any evidence for naturalism?



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?[/QUOTE]

I asked already for you to give me an example of how you can show that there is something supernatural! You cannot. That is the problem with your argument. We cannot find natural techniques to find supernatural events. Nor can we use supernatural techniques to show supernatural events. So please help me understand how you are going to show that supernatural things happen. I will keep an open mind but you need to give a reasonable example at least!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The difference you are sighting is the decision making of humans where belief becomes reality not based on evidence but on what feels right to the individual. These belief's have natural explanations of how they are generated but the beliefs themselves do not require evidence. Morality is a decision made by an individual but its basis is linked to how human brains work including emotional signals influenced by theory of mind, mirror neurons and a dorsolateral prefrontal cortex exerting it influence over a ventral medial cortex to determine the decision on what is moral. So the decision has naturalistic explanations but the statement of what is considered moral is not. The same is with aesthetics, what is considered pleasing or beautiful has foundations in the neurologic connections and associations and thus still naturalistic but the decision of what is beautiful or pleasing is not. The same is for how to use science and whether you believe in the supernatural is the same.

So the decisions that humans make on any of these topics have naturalistic mechanism at work but the final conclusions that an individual makes does not have to have a naturalistic explanation. That does not mean however that what we know about this world is not still imbedded in the natural world. The very natural structures and networks that make us social have created patterns of beliefs that do not need any evidence to support them. The underlying connection in our brains causing the patterns driving these beliefs are still naturalistic.

Please show that the universe is natural or do you use methodological naturalism?
I liked your post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are unethically misrepresenting my posts, and you are making a vain attempt at 'arguing from ignorance.' ALL mental activity is currently explainable by science, unless you can provide a falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence that supports an alternative explanation. The limits of science have been explained. You of course, can propose subjective arguments to explain the nature of mental activity, but this of course, is not science.

Still waiting . . .

Please give me the observation and not meaning of this sentence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Consider me shocked and amazed - especially coming from you, who have time and time again come after me for stating not much more than that I do not believe in any sort of deity, and don't believe the people who claim that any exists. If that's "nonchalance" then maybe I have been using the term incorrectly all along.

It was a good answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have to apologize first but I read it wrong so I get angry for no reason. I'm sorry.

Science doesn't make moral judgments
“Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience that is associated with actual or potential tissue damage. “The intensity of physical pain can range from mild localized discomfort to agony. If this sentence does not determine that it is morally wrong to cause pain, then we have a completely different point of view.

Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
I have to agree, but honestly it seems to me that as humanity we are beginning to fall to the same level.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
I have honestly conflicting feelings I think most of the knowledge was to improve life and then misused (dynamite was invented to help miners) so it self its tell you how to use it but if you choose use it wrong it not fault of science

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
I am very sure that science says that the supernatural does not exist.
But when I read it again I fully understand what you are trying to say.

You are honest. Good. Well, yes, even as religious I accept science in practice for certain aspects of the world, but not all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The physical world is objective, and mental states can be explained by objective verifiable evidence of the physical world.

Where does the subjective exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is part of the physical universe that can be objectively tested, therefore it is not supernatural.

The supernatural by definition is beyond our physical universe, subjective and therefore cannot be tested.

So is everything subjective supernatural?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

AI systems are capable of determining meaning. For example you can download the entire Wikipedia into an AI system and it will be able to determine the meaning of language.

The meaning that it determines will be subjective to the quantity of data provided to it. It maybe a more complex process for humans but I don't see this meaning any non-physical process is required.

Maybe you mean a AI system cannot feel love. Feelings are just a biofeedback mechanism which uses chemicals to induce a physical response in our bodies.

It is not a very good system of feedback, it is not very precise. I suspect an AI system will be able to develop better solutions, better answers without it.

Please tell me how you observe better?

 

[HonestJoe]

The supernatural by definition is beyond our physical universe, subjective and therefore cannot be tested.

That's an assertion you can't support by definition. It is true that anything we can't access can't be studied but it also means we can't say anything definitive about it either (see Schrodinger's Cat).

It also would mean that anything seen, heard or experienced by people in the physical universe can't be "supernatural". If we can't apply scientific method to something, that includes theology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because there is no evidence for naturalism

Now that's a claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now that's a claim.

Well, methodological naturalism is in part the axiomatic assumption that the universe is natural. That is not evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It was a good answer.

Sure thing Mr. Nonchalance.