Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Methodological Naturalism- A Failed Philosophy- "is a Necessity of Performing Science"?????

-
Some limpdick that goes by "Ritchie" sez:
ASSUMING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM IS A NECESSITY OF PERFORMING SCIENCE!!! EVERY THEORY IN EVERY FIELD OF SCIENCE ASSUMES IT!!!

Methodological naturalism is a failed philosophy- and it fails the regress test as natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

Huge failure, right off the bat.

Also limiting scientific inquiry and starting with a conclusion (question-begging) is another huge science-fail. A clsed science is a useless science and a science ruled by methodological naturalism is a closed science.

Closed science for the closed-minded...

posted by Joe G @ 8:21 PM  

56 Comments:

  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How should we test the super-natural, then Joe?

     

  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, RichTard, obviously something other than natural processes existed (and may still exist).

    So that is where we start.

     

  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So what's the test?

     

  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, RichTard, obviously something other than natural processes existed (and may still exist).

    So that is where we start.

    So the test it was something other than natural processes is that natural processes could not have done it.

     

  • At 2:49 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're being obtuse. How do we test for non-batural forces? Its a simple enough question.

     

  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, Richtard, YOU are obtuse.

    As I said if natural processes could not have done it then something other than natural processes did.

    It all goes back to Newton's First Rule- that's right you choked on that too.

     

  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    How do we test for non-batural forces? Its a simple enough question.

    Describe how. use an example, an experiment, whatever you need. It's a simple enough question.

     

  • At 4:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As I said if natural processes could not have done it then something other than natural processes did.

    It all goes back to Newton's First Rule- that's right you choked on that too.

    For EXAMPLE natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. So if natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature then something other than natural- non-batural, perhaps- had to have been involved.

     

  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Okay. WHAT was involved? HOW do we test for it? WHERE should we look for it? HOW does it work? WHAT are it's effects?

     

  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    WHAT was involved?

    Don't need to know that to know it wasn't natural processes.

    Richtard:
    HOW do we test for it?

    I told you. Obviously you shouldn't be doing anything connected to science.

    HOW THE FUCK DO WE TEST THE CLAIMS OF YOUR POSITION?

    Concentrate on that you moron.

     

  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Wow, thanks for those great answers Joe. We know so much more about it now. More testament to the power of ID thinking (Which is compatible with baraminology)


    How do you know nature isn't perpetual, Joe?

     

  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard,

    Your position doesn't have any answers for anything so shut the fuck up.

    How do we test for a perpetual nature, Rich?

     

  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Don't get your knickers in a twist, Joe.

     

  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice projection, Richtard.

    And thanks for clarifying that your position is untestable

     

  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    We know that nature is, Joe. And we know it was. These are entities that we have some understanding of.


    What do we know about the supernatural?

    Also, what started the supernatural? Do we need the super-doopernatural?

     

  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    We know that nature is, Joe.

    We know nature is what, Richtard?

    RichTard:
    And we know it was.

    We know nature was what, RichTard?

    RichTard:
    These are entities that we have some understanding of.

    We also know that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.

    RichTard:
    What do we know about the supernatural?

    We know it is a possible candidate for the origin of nature.

    Richtard:
    Also, what started the supernatural?

    Irrelevant, Richtard.

    Leave it to an evotard to believe asking ignorant and irrelevant questions can refute an argument.

     

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    science says that nature had an origion? citation, please.

    we know that nature is (exists). We don't know that about the supernatural.

     

  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    science says that nature had an origion? citation, please.

    It's called "the big-bang" theory, moron.

    RichTard:
    we know that nature is (exists).

    And we also know it had a beginning/ origin.

    Richtard:
    We don't know that about the supernatural.

    Even if that were true, we don't have to.

    Geez you are such an ignorant fuck.

     

  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So, to be clear, you think that "the big bang" was the start of nature?

     

  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The big bang was the start of the universe and the universe is nature.

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh dear. May I humbly suggest that you're using the same sort of equivocation that Craig uses in KCA?

    http://tinyurl.com/3bo5kxk

    There is nothing to stop natural things and nature existing before the universe

    http://tinyurl.com/4yk7km9

    science is fine with this.

     

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You cannot redefine words to suit your needs and nature is defined as the physical world.

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you don't have a clue.

    BTW you tube videos are not science...

     

  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    BTW you tube videos are not science.

    The second one cites explicitly your misunderstanding of modern cosmology, by leading cosmologists, in peer reviewed works.

     

  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please tell us about this alleged misunderstanding that I have.

     

  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is RichTard saying that because Penrose can make shit up and have it sound sciency that I have a misunderstanding about modern cosmology?

     

  • At 1:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    There's nothing scientifically preventing nature before the big bang.

     

  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is nothing scientifically preventing the supernatural, the prenatural, or monkeys coming out of your ass.

    And there is no way to scientifically test the claim that nature existed before the big bang.

     

  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, your whole argument was predicated on needing something before nature. Now you've given that up, your argument doesn't work.

     

  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Joe, your whole argument was predicated on needing something before nature.

    And it still stands.

    Making shit up does not refute my argument.

     

  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    no, it doesn't. Its predicated on an absolute need for the supernatural. Modern cosmology does not require that. Sorry.

     

  • At 9:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    no, it doesn't.

    Yes, it does. Making shit up doesn't refute anything.

    RichTard:
    Its predicated on an absolute need for the supernatural.

    Wrong again, as usual. If is before nature then it is pre-natural. But we have been over and over this many times and you choked on it then too.

    RichTard:
    Modern cosmology does not require that.

    But modern cosmology is OK with making shit up? Only a loser would thinks so.

     

  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You're conflating "nature" with "the present incarnation of the universe", which (as physicist in the video point out) is wrong.

    JOEFAIL.

     

  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yet those physicists cannot test their claims. And the present incarnation of the universe is the only one we know of. Anything else if just making shit up.

     

  • At 12:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Yet those physicists cannot test their claims"

    So how do we test that the supernatural predated teh big bang?

     

  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So how do we test that the supernatural predated teh big bang?

    Well, RichTard, obviously something other than natural processes existed (and may still exist).

    So that is where we start.

     

  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So to recap- now we know that methodological naturalism is the philosophy of making shit up/ just say anything in an attempt to avoid the obvious.

     

  • At 2:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Well, RichTard, obviously something other than natural processes existed (and may still exist)."

    No they don't, see above. Modern cosmology does not require nature to begin at the big bang. You are ignorant. And you proffer something with no support. How ID of you.

     

  • At 2:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    Modern cosmology does not require nature to begin at the big bang.

    Right it requires made up bullshit to get beyond the obvious.

    You are a fucking moron and will believe anything as long as you think it supports your position.

     

  • At 2:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So your argument fails because you thought the supernatural was necessitous for the big bang. And modern physics thinks nor requires no such thing.

    Joe makign things up 0
    Reality 1

     

  • At 3:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard:
    So your argument fails because you thought the supernatural was necessitous for the big bang.

    Liar- you are just making shit up, again.

    I maintain the supernatural is a possibility for the big bang, not a necessity. I have NEVER said the supernatural was a necessity. See you are a fucking liar.

    The pre-natural is a necessity for the origin of nature.

    RichTard:
    And modern physics thinks nor requires no such thing.

    Modern physics just makes shit up to get around the obvious.

     

  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "We have already seen that no miracle is evident in the big bang. It follows that its appearance could have been natural. Indeed, this is the more rational conclusion based on the absence of any violation of known physical principles. Prominent physicists and cosmologists have published, in reputable scientific journals, a number of proposals for how the universe could have come about “from nothing” naturally.17 These are speculative, to be sure, but they are speculations based on established knowledge. None violate any known laws of physics. These authors do not claim to “prove” that this is how it all happened. The burden of proof is on those who wish to claim these scenarios are impossible. "

    Well said.

    http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/scientific_case_god150106.htm

     

  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I maintain the supernatural is a possibility for the big bang, not a necessity. I have NEVER said the supernatural was a necessity. See you are a fucking liar."

    You don't really have an argument against naturalism then, do you. You can engage in semantic wankery all you want, but for all intents and purposes your prenaturalism = naturalism.


    "Modern physics just makes shit up to get around the obvious."

    Like the bing bang, presumably, which you accept because you want he supernatural to be real. But a 6k year old earth would be better, eh creationist?

     

  • At 3:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm "speculations" = making shit up, moron.

    And science works via POSITIVE evidence not having to prove someone wrong.

     

  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Umm "speculations" = making shit up, moron.


    Do you mean like your unsupported and not required speculation, Joe?

    ;-)

    "And science works via POSITIVE evidence not having to prove someone wrong"

    Oh like the EF does(n't)? Thanks for playing, idiot!

    but feel free to make your positive case form the supernatural.

     

  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    You don't really have an argument against naturalism then, do you.

    Yes I do and I stated it. Geez you are as ignorant as dirt.

    Richtard:
    You can engage in semantic wankery all you want, but for all intents and purposes your prenaturalism = naturalism.

    No, you don't get to baldly declare shit and have it mean something.

    "Modern physics just makes shit up to get around the obvious."

    RichTard:
    Like the bing bang, presumably, which you accept because you want he supernatural to be real.

    Except I have no stake in the supernatural and the scientific evidence supports the big bang.

    Richtard:
    But a 6k year old earth would be better, eh creationist?

    There isn't any eviodence for a 6K year old earth assholist.

    You are just a fucking baby

     

  • At 3:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And science works via POSITIVE evidence not having to prove someone wrong"

    RichTard:
    Oh like the EF does(n't)?

    The EF woks via positive evidence you ignorant fuck.

    Do you really think your ignorance means something?

    RichTard:
    but feel free to make your positive case form the supernatural.

    And you feel free to make a positive case for your position.

     

  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The EF woks via positive evidence you ignorant fuck."

    WRONG. It goes 'not this nor that therefore this other thing'. IDIOT.

     

  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The EF works via positive evidence you ignorant fuck.

    RichTard:
    WRONG.

    Of course it does. In order to reach an affirmative, ie a "Yes" it takes positive evidence.

    There needs to be positive evidence for a crime and positive evidence for an artifact. But first one must also eliminate necessity and chance.

    Richtard:
    It goes 'not this nor that therefore this other thing'.

    No, it doesn't and only an ignorant fuck would say such a thing.

    There isn't a default to design after necessity and chance have been eliminated. It takes positive evidence for design at the last node in order ro reach a design inference. And yes it could be as little as "it looks designed", because once other causes are eliminated just looking designed is more than enough to investigate that possibility.

     

  • At 4:24 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Have a look:

    http://www.discovery.org/a/4207

    It rules things out before comming up with design, EXACTLY as I said.

    IDIOT.

    That's not ""And science works via POSITIVE evidence not having to prove someone wrong"


    Whoops.

     

  • At 4:36 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    you're also being corrected here:

    http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6647;st=2850#entry193959

     

  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Have a look:

    http://www.discovery.org/a/4207

    It rules things out before comming up with design, EXACTLY as I said.

    You ARE a moron. Yes it rules things out, AS I SAID but there must also be POSITIVE evidence for design- THAT IS WHAT SPECIFICATION refers to you ignorant fuck.

    SPECIFICATION in the last decision box is the positive evidence.

    Thanks for continuing to prove that you are one dishonest moron.

     

  • At 6:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    you're also being corrected here:

    Unfortunately for Zachriel YOU have already confirmed what I said due to the fact that "methodological naturalism" requires the metaphysical.

    Not only that it is a close-minded approach to scientific inquiry.

     

  • At 3:50 AM, Blogger aaam said…

    The term "supernatural" is meaningless if all observable reality (aka "nature") has been created? Because in that case all observable reality is not natural but actually artificial and we are unable to observe actual "nature".

    It wouldn't even surprise me if our linear time is only linear to us and much more fluid for anything outside[1], in which case "before the big bang" would be meaningless because even time as we experience it would be artificial and without any baring on time outside our reality.

    [1] Perhaps comparable to "lazy evaluation", "conditional evaluation", etc in computers? It would explain a lot of observed quantum weirdness.

     

  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So if we see a person floating through the air- actually flying- without the aid of any device, is that artificial or supernatural?

     

  • At 2:52 PM, Blogger aaam said…

    The question poses an imposible situation assuming something simular to absolute knowledge

    What we can observe is not the absolute absence of any device, our abilities to observe are more limited. At best we can see (given our primitive tools of observation, poor understanding and very limited knowledge) is the absence of any recognizable device which could explain what we observe.

    "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!"

     

  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you have seen Criss Angel too...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home