Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Again assuming that the universe is naturalistic is more reasonable then believing in the supernatural or magic. Do you believe that belief (faith) is more valuable then reason?
But I am not claiming god to be supernatural at all. Or magical. But I fail to see how it's more reasonable at all. Both worldviews would allow for science and empiricism to work.
It depends. Generally I would say reason is more valuable. But logic and reason always rests on certain assumptions.
Metaphysical naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls, non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) do not exist.
The belief that the universe is naturalistic is verifiable, e.g. modern medicine, science, and technology are based on observations of a naturalistic universe; if the universe is not naturalistic, then modern medicine, science, and technology would not have any real world applications.
The belief that the universe is created by God is not observable, testable, or verifiable.
I'm saying that God provides the necessary preconditions for such things. This explains why induction works in the Christian worldview. Naturalistic science also believes induction works but there is no way to explain it since each new observation adds to the inductive process.
I am saying that if the universe is not naturalistic, then modern medicine, science, and technology would not have any real world applications since they are based on observations of a naturalistic universe. In other words, that modern medicine, science, and technology have real world applications is verification that the universe is naturalistic.
By all means, explain how the belief that the universe is created by God is observable, testable, and verifiable.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I think it is more reasonable to believe that the world is Naturalist, then to believe in a supernatural or magical world. IMHO people who believe in the supernatural and magical worlds are delusional.
And why wouldn't they be applicable if observed in a created universe?
I never claimed it was observable or testable. I said neither were. How can you prove naturalism? How can you know you're observing a created world sustained by god or observing a world that came about through natural causes?
Again, I am not claiming god to be supernatural or magical. For him to be supernatural would presuppose that there is a natural world to be beyond. I am saying everything is created in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
We have to use words to understand each other. There is a natural world or a supernatural world. All you are doing is saying that both natural and supernatural are replaced with created world. "Created world" is supernatural. Don't be offended by the words, they are just tools we use to communicate.
No, I am not saying that at all. Supernatural has no meaning at all outside a dualistic metaphysic. I'm saying there is no such dualism. All is created and god is self-sustaining and sustains his creation. There is no "nature" to be beyond or above in the first place since everything was created.
Maybe in some sense but not in the philosophical sense. Naturailsm isn't compatible with the idea of a creator god because they would consider the concept to be unknowable and/or nonexistent beforehand.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
It all depends on what is meant by "creation" and "god". If "creation" is natural processes, and god is the universe, then you have no problem. However, you can't take the bible literally in that case.
KMC Community Forums
May 21st, 2007 07:19 PM
