Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 2, 2014 at 10:19 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I have been engaging with this theist for quite some time (full disclosure, he's my brother) and while surfing the internet today, I discovered that he had posted this argument elsewhere, still proclaiming it to be a "knockdown" argument against naturalism (apparently my counters haven't penetrated the extraordinary stupidity). I would value anyone's insights. Anyway, here is the argument in full. If anyone would like to engage with him yourself, the link to his post is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7790596/
"Naturalism vs. Naturalism"
Naturalism is the belief or idea that nature is all that exist (not merely the belief that the natural world exists). On naturalism, atheism (the belief that God does not exist or else the non -belief in the existence of God) necessarily follows. However, on atheism, naturalism does not necessarily follow. So naturalism is stronger than atheism in that it denies the existence of anything besides the physical world (such as a deity) and asserts that nature is all that exists. So to give a couple examples, the naturalist holds that the origin and cause of the universe must be explainable naturalistically. Perhaps, by this he or she might hold that there exist some unknown laws that eternally existed and gave rise to our universe and that there are eternal or transcend space, time, and energy, existing in a singularity or whatever. In any case, presiding at the origin and as the cause of the universe was something other than a personal necessary omnipotent being. Also they would hold that over a long period of time, energy produced the mind with its capacity to hold the belief or idea that nature is all that exists (that naturalism was true). If nature is all that exists, it is necessarily true that what has existed to the present are a random rearrangement of particles and that the human mind is made up of the particular arrangement of these particles through this random process. Further, each individual particle is determined to act according to natural laws and nature from the eternal state that caused our universe, to our galaxy, to every star, to our planet, to the formation of first life, and then eventually to conscious persons who came to hold this particular worldview to be true. Particles are determined by those laws to move and to develop not just our physicality but also our minds with the entirety of our beliefs (beliefs are determined as well since the mind is the sole result of naturalistic processes). Granting then that all beliefs are the determined product of these forces, (the mere result of random energy particles coalescing over time to produce the mind and all beliefs), what is the likelihood that our belief that naturalism is true is a true belief ? The chance of our belief that naturalism is true being on the grounds of naturalism - energy, time, and chance, ect., does not provide any justification for the belief that naturalism is true and a falsification for those beliefs. The argument here is not really that naturalism is false per se (although if many of our beliefs are actually true in general as opposed to merely perceptually true, then naturalism seemingly should be rejected), but rather that there can be no rational justification for believing that naturalism is true (determined energy/nature alone) if the basis for those beliefs is naturalism (the random coalescing of particles from the cause of the universe). Or to put it another way, if I am a product of nature alone, then my beliefs are a determined product of nature alone, the reliance on our belief that naturalism is true is entirely the result of nature alone which provide us with no justifiable grounds for believing in naturalism. On the proposed grounds for our beliefs, why would we accept that our belief or idea about naturalism being true is correct when as it arises in the mind, the inclination to believe that it is true is sole the result of random determined processes ? Apparently, the belief ought to be rejected on the basis of what those beliefs are predicated on. The probability of that belief would be too low. I conclude then that naturalism ought not to be believed since our beliefs about naturalism being true are undercut by the idea that naturalism is true. Our belief that naturalism is true (that we have a true belief about naturalism) then requires the defeater that naturalism is true since in such a case our beliefs about naturalism is without merit and with a high probability that such a belief as opposed to some other random one (and here there could be trillions) is false. In such a case, the probability for our belief that naturalism is true is so improbable that it lacks justification for belief. So it seems to follow that naturalism is not a rationally justifiable idea or belief and ought not to be believed. Or in any case, there exist no rational justification for believing it to be true since believing that it is true provides a defeater for believing it to be true.
