(June 21, 2015 at 9:58 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Which part did you have an issue with?
Naturalism can be true in a world that is *devoid* of meaning (intrinsic or subjective). In essence, naturalism is the view that the only forces that operate on the world are natural ones - it is, in short, a rejection of the supernatural. It does not appear that consciousness is required in order for the world to exist (though it is in order for us to observe it), and meaning is incoherent without consciousness.
Written another way, the argument is essentially "the supernatural is required for meaning to be deterministic".
Furthermore, I question whether the second premise is demonstrable. The entire thing appears to be argumentum ex culo
I'm not sure the second premise is demonstrable either, and that's where I'm confused. Because if meaning isn't determinate then what does that say for science, which presupposes it is? I'm not convinced, nor do I think I could be, that a god is the solution for the same reason Carrier described in his rebuttal, which another user posted a link to.
