evidence

All posts in the evidence category

Naturalism

Published 11 March 2011 by lordgriggs

 Why are you a naturalist? Do you try not only to post against the supernatural but also against the paranormal and the future state. Some atheists like Charles Ducasse go in for the paranormal, and some like him,on the basis of the paranormal,  and William McTaggart Ellis McTaggart, on the basis of his idealism, go in for the future state- the after life.
 Or, if not a naturalist, why not? Whether agnostic,atheistic or theistic?
 We naturalists find that natural causes and explanations need no outside cause- no God- to make them work. Nicholas Malebranche himself, the chief occasionalist and Continental Rationalist makes what I call Malebranche’s reductio [ ad absurdum] unwittingly when he affirms that God effectuates all acts so that should we hit the eight ball, He makes that happen! That does reduce to absurdity that He has anything to do with anything!
 God cannot be Aquinas’s Primary Efficient Cause- explanation- nor Leibniz’s Sufficient Reason-one of his two blunders- as God did it means gibberish!
  And supernaturalists use the arguments from incredulity and from ignorance in their argumentation.
 Leibniz asks incredulously why is there something rather than nothing as though nothingness were normal when the eternal quantum fields illustrate that Existence is therefore eternal, and science finds no need to find external support- God the Sustainer- to sustain it.And to postulate Him relies on the argument from ignorance. This is his colossal blunder!
  Science indeed does invalidate the supernatural  as it presents how Existence operates in a teleonomic-mechanistic- way. To postulate the supernatural behind it not only violates the Ockham by needing convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also contradicts science in finding that very teleonomy!
 Lamberth’s teleonomic argument notes all this on the basis of science and philosophy rather than just on the basis of philosophy. The atelic argument notes that supernaturalists beg the question of agency-intent- teleology- wanted outcomes. Both arguments refute all teleological ones- from reason-the self-refutation of naturalism, to design, fine-tuning and probability.
  When skeptics examine the paranormal, finding  false claims, paranormalists reply that the skeptics being there harm the  test.
  Theologians and paranormalists rank the same- purveyors of woeful, wily woo!