RE: "Knockdown" Argument Against Naturalism
January 2, 2014 at 11:11 am
(This post was last modified: January 2, 2014 at 11:13 am by FreeTony.)
I'm not sure anyone believes the supernatural does definitely not exist. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the supernatural does exist. Without a complete knowledge of the laws of the universe (or possibly omniscience), one cannot determine whether something has a natural or supernatural cause. If you can't do this you have no good reason to believe in it.
Let's take an example. A supernatural being exists and every 30 seconds creates a neutron at a point in space. How could you tell that the cause is supernatural and not natural? The most we could deduce is that at point x every 30 seconds a neutron appears. We have no idea why. It could be supernatural, or it could be natural and something we do not yet understand about the laws of physics.
Every time someone has said something has a supernatural cause, it has either later been found to have a natural cause, or is still not understood. E.g. Thunder being an angry god.
ps Atheism doesnt follow from naturalism necessarily, God could be natural. Even if a God did exist, you'd have no idea whether it was supernatural or not.
Let's take an example. A supernatural being exists and every 30 seconds creates a neutron at a point in space. How could you tell that the cause is supernatural and not natural? The most we could deduce is that at point x every 30 seconds a neutron appears. We have no idea why. It could be supernatural, or it could be natural and something we do not yet understand about the laws of physics.
Every time someone has said something has a supernatural cause, it has either later been found to have a natural cause, or is still not understood. E.g. Thunder being an angry god.
ps Atheism doesnt follow from naturalism necessarily, God could be natural. Even if a God did exist, you'd have no idea whether it was supernatural or not.
