123 replies to this topic

[Adam Nagy]

Most of them simply prefer to think that since everything that exists now has a natural explanation...

Everything has a natural explanation? Do tell...

[IGE37]

   

Everything has a natural explanation? Do tell...

What things would you like me to be specific about? I guess, if I really think about it, there might be a few things out there that don't have a natural explanation, but I would like to hear specifically what you had in mind.

I'm sorry I didn't choose my words more carefully. I should have said "most" or "things pertinent to this discussion" have a natural explanation, but I'm glad you find my beliefs:

[Adam Nagy]

I didn't mean to at your beliefs but it was a poorly made assertion. However, if you tell us that you assume everything must have a natural (as in naturalistic) explanation, we could explore what this means.

BTW, I don't think we have spoken before. Nice to meet your acquaintance, IGE37.

[IGE37]

I didn't mean to    at your beliefs but it was a poorly made assertion. However, if you tell us that you assume everything must have a natural (as in naturalistic) explanation, we could explore what this means.

BTW, I don't think we have spoken before. Nice to meet your acquaintance, IGE37.

Likewise.

It's not such a poorly made assertion, but I can only prove such if you give me some process that exists on this earth that does not have a naturalistic explanation.

Let's explore this, since it's more to the point of what I previously posted:

What, regarding the origins of the universe, does not have a naturalistic explanation?

I'm not placing limits on what you want to discuss, but I would to see what you have to say about the bolded part, specifically.

[Adam Nagy]

What, regarding the origins of the universe, does not have a naturalistic explanation?

The origin of the universe itself. Leading scientists seem to agree that the moment before the Big Bang was the point in time when there was no time or matter or natural laws as we know them...

[Adam Nagy]

Look at that again. Are you and Alan Guth related? He thinks he can explain everything too...





...just messing with you.

[Adam Nagy]

Look at Wikipidia (Big Bang) a bastion of naturalistic thinking.

There's nothing more natural then declaring the breakdown of general relativity...

"This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."

[IGE37]

The origin of the universe itself. Leading scientists seem to agree that the moment before the Big Bang was the point in time when there was no time or matter or natural laws as we know them...

Right, so talking about anything before the existence of anything is, in fact, trying to explain...nothing.

Everything from the big bang onward has a natural explanation. That IS the origin of the universe. What existed before that is irrelevant because it existed outside of the laws of physics, therefore any discussion of natural explanations before the existence of the laws of nature is irrelevant to anything.

If you assertion is that, since we can't explain what existed/happened before the big bang we don't have a natural explanation for everything, then what, specifically, that existed before the big bang do we not have a natural explanation for?

[IGE37]

Look at Wikipidia (Big Bang) a bastion of naturalistic thinking.

There's nothing more natural then declaring the breakdown of general relativity... 

"This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity."

If you want to say that the Big Bang is hotly contested and continually researched among the scientific community because of it's flaws, your point is noted.

My point: the Big Bang is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. It may not be complete or entirely convincing, but it is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.

[Adam Nagy]

Everything from the big bang onward has a natural explanation.  That IS the origin of the universe.  What existed before that is irrelevant because it existed outside of the laws of physics...

You got me laughing again. So anything that points outside your a priori assertion that everything has a natural explanation is irrelevant?... ah huh check

Rule #1 - Everything can be explained naturalisticly

Rule #2 - If something can't be explained naturalisticly refer to rule #1

[Adam Nagy]

My point: the Big Bang is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe.

My point: That statement is utterly false based on the very speculative explanation (you know the one that says general relativity breaks down, things come from nothing, etc. etc. etc.) that explains itself with things that not only can't be tested but proclaim their own opposition to science.

So please tell us how a theory that claims knowledge of a point in the past when natural laws breakdown can ever be considered naturalistic? It is perfectly natural for natural laws to break down, huh?

[IGE37]

 

You got me laughing again. So anything that points outside your a priori assertion that everything has a natural explanation is irrelevant?... ah huh    check

Rule #1 - Everything can be explained naturalisticly

Rule #2 - If something can't be explained naturalisticly refer to rule #1

Edit to your rules:

Rule 1: Anything that exists since the big bang has a naturalistic explanation

Rule 2: Anything that exists before the big bang cannot be explained using naturalistic laws because the laws of nature did not exist.

[Adam Nagy]

But then, you would agree, that every observation in the world today has a naturalistic explanation?

First let's establish that it is perfectly reasonable to recognize that there is some entity/condition that precedes and supersedes our existence. agreed?

While you're gathering up the courage to admit that both of our paradigms accept this, enjoy Dr. Atheist...

WsAxc7sNsa0

Have a good night, IGE37. I'll respond tomorrow.

[IGE37]

My point: That statement is utterly false based on the very speculative explanation (you know the one that says general relativity breaks down, things come from nothing, etc. etc. etc.) that explains itself with things that not only can't be tested but proclaim their own opposition to science.

So please tell us how a theory that claims knowledge of a point in the past when natural laws breakdown can ever be considered naturalistic? It is perfectly natural for natural laws to break down, huh? 

Again, if your point is to say that the Big Bang is continually experimented and tested because it has flaws, your point is taken. What we know is that there are natural processes that explain much of the big bang. Could a naturalist accept a theory that is incomplete? I would guess so, if they're so committed to a naturalistic explanation.

It's like abiogenesis. Is the theory incomplete? Yes. Is there a naturalistic process that can experimentally prove that life can come from primordial soup? No. Is it an explanation for how things COULD have come into the world without the need of supernatural interference? Yes.

[Adam Nagy]

Could a naturalist accept a theory that is incomplete?

Who is talking about incompleteness? I'm talking about the one that declares the break down of natural laws.... uhh... naturally.

night.

[IGE37]

First let's establish that it is perfectly reasonable to recognize that there is some entity/condition that precedes and supersedes our existence. agreed?

While you're gathering up the courage to admit that both of our paradigms accept this, enjoy Dr. Atheist...

WsAxc7sNsa0

Have a good night, IGE37. I'll respond tomorrow.

If you're asking that I acknowledge that belief in religion as well as belief in the big bang and abiogenesis require faith, then I will acknowledge that. If you're trying to tell me that there is definitely some sort of of entity/condition that supersedes our existence, I cannot tell you for sure.

Neither science nor religion has a falsifiable explanation for anything that existed before...anything.

[IGE37]

Who is talking about incompleteness? I'm talking about the one that declares the break down of natural laws.... uhh... naturally. 

night.

I don't understand...so you're saying since there isn't enough known about the big bang, it cannot be a natural explanation? Since it has unknown forces working within it, it's not a feasible natural theory for how the universe began?

[IGE37]

 

You got me laughing again. So anything that points outside your a priori assertion that everything has a natural explanation is irrelevant?... ah huh    check

Rule #1 - Everything can be explained naturalisticly

Rule #2 - If something can't be explained naturalisticly refer to rule #1

I just thought of something regarding this point you made earlier. If you're laughing at the idea that anything that exists outside of natural law still has to be explained by natural law, then let's try a couple things:

Is it possible to empirically identify anything that exists outside of natural law?

On a more philosophical note, let's say that we were to input a creator into this (this is in no way meant to demote creationism, I promise). If I were to ask you if a divine creator, God, Buddha, or whatever could explain everything you see today, would you say yes?

I'm going to assume that you do, so let's try level the playing field then. Who/what created the creator? Anything? More importantly, does it truly matter? And, even more importantly, if you cannot answer that question, does it take anything away from the idea that special creation can explain everything you see today?

Perhaps you can see the conundrum here. Philosophically, we cannot explain everything with anything. But if that's the case, then I suppose I should no longer use the word everything, without being open to ridicule, of course.

[IGE37]

I just wanted to put one more thing down, as I have a tendency to forget things if I stay away from a thread too long, and I will be working tomorrow .

My understanding of the Big Bang and it's limits is that theories involving the big bang are that they are limited, specifically, by quantum physics.

I'm no physicist (I took up to Physics 212 as my degree required) but I know that quantum physics can explain all the forces involved in the big bang up to 10^-43 second AFTER the Big Bang. Surely, I suppose that means that not EVERY part of the Big Bang theory can be explained. However, I would like to approach this another way, as I see this discussion evolving into a more philosophical one (not that it has to):

What if the processes involved in the Big Bang that you say "declares the break down of natural laws" really doesn't? What if there is a natural process that does explain the supposed breakdown of natural laws that hasn't been discovered yet (see what I posted above concerning the limits of quantum physics)?

Does it mean that the current naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe isn't a natural explanation at all?

I look forward to this conversation, and have a good night!

[Ron]

I re-posted this from: http://www.evolution...481

Most of the atheists I converse with have little desire to do what Dawkins is hoping to accomplish (the eradication of religion). 

Most of the atheists I know, and those I've become acquainted with in the internet, and most of the atheists post that I read, would suggest otherwise. But, I am not suggesting all, nor am I suggesting I've read all atheistic opinion on the matter.

Most of them simply prefer to think that since everything that exists now has a natural explanation, then the history of the earth also has a natural explanation.

This is what is known as circular reasoning. You have a tautology on your hands my friend.

Though I would imagine that a scientifically concrete explanation for the origins on life on this planet would make the denial of an omnipotent creator much easier.

Not only is that line of thought illogical, but it not rational or scientific either. But, if you could posit some evidence (other than your imaginings), we could discuss it at the thread Adam suggested.