Flobee Wrote:theVOID Wrote:BTW, we do in fact have naturalist explanations for The origins of life (Abiogenesis), Fine tuning (Multi-verse, Mathematical Necessity) consciousness (monist theory, Metzinger, Spinoza etc.) Morality (Desirism, Moral naturalism, Moral theory of evolution etc) Rationality (Reliablism etc.) and i reject "true free will" as it has not been demonstrated or made logically necessary.
Yes you do
Then why did you say the opposite eariler?
"there has yet to be a naturalistic explanation for the big bang, fine tuning, the origins of life, consciousness, the moral law, rationality, or free will." - Flobee
Quote:have theories about these things but unfortunately none of them work.
Define "Work".
Quote: You say life arouse naturally by pure matter with no intelligent guidance and yet you cannot recreate an intelligent experiment to create life.
We have shown that many parts of the process can be done via the proximity of certain compunds and environmental factors alone, not to mention other significant sucesses in creating synthetic cells and forming RNA from simpler also artificial protiens, compounds etc and having them replicating, then synthetic cell construction:
Amino Acids
Self replication of RNA
Synthetic Cells
We have a wealth of information from many stages of the process, especially from the RNA experiments, that show self-replicating structures (The prerequisit for evolution) and the components required to make them are very much in the realm of natural mechanism - Your argument naturalistic explanations are invalid because they haven't recreated the entire process is irrelevent and you know it - you are entirely unjustified as dismissing it. We have evidence in support of a naturalistic position, thus making the position reasonable, unlike the supernatural alternative, we have no evidence that your Wizzard friend (God) got involved anywhere.
Quote: Multi-verse is a nice theory except it has absolutely no evidence to support it because it's nothing more then speculation.
No evidence = true
Pure speculation = False
You clearly have a meager understanding of what M-Theory is, it is a complex and comprehensive mathematical framework that is able to explain every known phenomenon in physics and provides the ability for the first time to reconcile them into a single framework. This is a well developed hypothesis, and is completely prone to investigation - It can be falsified and verified, and it will onyl be a matter of time (proponents hope years) before one or the other is achieved - This alone makes it a far more credible than your Wizzard hypothesis, which as you know is neither verifiable or falsifiable.
Quote: These are topics for another discussion but the point is you don't have a naturalistic explanation you have nothing more then wishful theories that have not proven conclusive in any of those cases.
Bring up the topic then!
It's clearly more substantial than "wishful theories" - That is the domain of your Wizzard. We have more evidence for Abiogenesis alone than you do for the Wizzard in entirety - This makes naturalism quite clearly the only rational position to hold.
Quote:Aren't you doing the same thing by saying free will is an illusion and trying to explain away the perfect fine tuning of the universe by saying well there's an infinity of universes out there that we just can't see. God as well as multiple universes would both be beyond our universe and beyond our ability to study scientifically so your using pure faith on that one.
Are you trying to relate free will to the multiverse or was that just poorly phrased?
I am not trying to explain away free will, i feel no need to explain away something that i do not believe exists - my position on Free Will follows from my naturalism, which is a conclusion reached through my epistemology; Reliblisim - And this is because the scientific method is EASILY the most reliable, accurate, productive and explanatory methodology for determining the truth of a given proposition ever discovered, thus i construct similar methodologies in assessing all truth claims. It requires a far higher standard of acceptance than you theists are used to.
Anyway, there could be any number of reasons for why the fine-tuning has taken place, what this is not is a positive arguemnt for the existence of Wizzards interfering - which is ultimately what propose. To attempt a dichotomy here between the Multiverse and Wizzards is pure incredulity.
Quote:Again I think your backwards, you are the one trying to force the evidence into a naturalistic conclusion when it simply can't be done because you are certain that matter is all there is.
That is a misrepresentation - I take the position that matter and energy are all that is reasonable to believe, this does not ultimately conclude upon the existence of the supernatural, it is simply a stance that there is no good reason to believe in any supernatural proposition ever proposed. There appears not to be a single instance where nature is not enough.
Secondly, you keep mentioning this "evidence" yet haven't presented any as an example - I wonder why that is.... Could it be yet another theist making bare assertions? I think so.
Quote: Yet when matter can't explain phenomenons such as love, beauty, truth, free will, morality etc. you simply say these things aren't real.
Are you a joke? Is this a joke? I'm really dumbfounded by your apparent stupidity here.
No naturalist ever said that these phenomenon weren't real. What the fuck do you think we call our experiences of these phenomenon? We only contest that these phenomenon have entirely natural causes - We argue that you have misattributed these phenomenon to another non-existent phenomenon.
Quote: I guess it makes sense that you don't believe in a God that you can't see or hear since you don't even believe in common sense realities such as free will.
So you have an argument for the existence of free will, or are you just going to keep committing the bare-assertion fallacy?
.
