An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

That makes no sense Shuny. What definition of Methodological Naturalism tells us that the laws of logic/nature are universally uniformed.

The definition of the Law of non-contradiction, uniformity and consistence as verified by observation of our physical existence.

You know the argument Shuny, our precondition for intelligibility and human rationality is God. What is your precondition ?

My argument has more meat to it then simply 'I believe it so,'

Simply the physical universe is as it is how we observe, tested and verified by scientific methods. The preconditions of Methodological Naturalism are confirmed by observation. You have no such support. Yes, I have a further 'precondition' that I believe in God, but that alone is not sufficient justification to explain the knowledge nature of our physical existence. The other 'precondition' from the Baha'i perspective is that the human senses are reasonably accurate to determine the knowledge of nature of our physical existence, and this is confirmed by the evidence through science.

I know that you are making an assertion 'I believe' and not a coherent argument. What is your precondition other then simply the 'bald assertion 'I believe' it so?

You still have questions you have refused to answer?!?!?

[JimL]

Of course murder is not wrong in and of itself in a godless universe - how could it be?

Well then seer, murder is not wrong in and of itself is it? Do you agree then that there is no such thing as objective morality, that murder isn't wrong in and of itself, that it is only wrong because God decided to make it illegal? I suppose you have no choice now but to answer in the affirmative, if you are to remain consistent in your argument, that morality is not in and of itself objective, that morals are merely the whim of God, but that being the case, why do you suppose that God subjectively chose murder, rape, theft etc. etc. to be immoral rather than moral?

[Tassman]

Of course murder is not wrong in and of itself in a godless universe - how could it be?

[seer]

The definition of the Law of non-contradiction, uniformity and consistence as verified by observation of our physical existence.

No Shuny, you claimed that Methodological Naturalism was a worldview (which it is not, it describes a process of investigation). And Methodological Naturalism does not tell us that the laws of logic/nature are universally uniformed. It has nothing to say about such things.

My argument has more meat to it then simply 'I believe it so,'

Simply the physical universe is as it is how we observe, tested and verified by scientific methods. The preconditions of Methodological Naturalism are confirmed by observation. You have no such support. Yes, I have a further 'precondition' that I believe in God, but that alone is not sufficient justification to explain the knowledge nature of our physical existence. The other 'precondition' from the Baha'i perspective is that the human senses are reasonably accurate to determine the knowledge of nature of our physical existence, and this is confirmed by the evidence through science.

I know that you are making an assertion 'I believe' and not a coherent argument. What is your precondition other then simply the 'bald assertion 'I believe' it so?

You still have questions you have refused to answer?!?!?

Shuny again this makes no sense. Do you even know what a precondition is?

"something that must exist or happen before something else can exist or happen"

Nothing you said even remotely qualifies as a precondition for an intelligible universe, human rationality or the reliability of the senses. God does fulfill this role, Methodological Naturalism can not.

[seer]

Well then seer, murder is not wrong in and of itself is it? Do you agree then that there is no such thing as objective morality, that murder isn't wrong in and of itself, that it is only wrong because God decided to make it illegal? I suppose you have no choice now but to answer in the affirmative, if you are to remain consistent in your argument, that morality is not in and of itself objective, that morals are merely the whim of God, but that being the case, why do you suppose that God subjectively chose murder, rape, theft etc. etc. to be immoral rather than moral?

Jim, again the law of God is not a "whim" for the clear reasons that I gave, His laws are born from His immutable moral character. And the law of God is still objective to humankind - and authoritative.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, you claimed that Methodological Naturalism was a worldview (which it is not, it describes a process of investigation). And Methodological Naturalism does not tell us that the laws of logic/nature are universally uniformed. It has nothing to say about such things.

False seer, Methodological Naturalism (MN) DOES NOT describe a process of investigation, it is a philosophy of science that defines a worldview. The scientific methods developed over time, based on the falsification of hypothesis and theorems ARE the processes of investigation, based on the philosophy of MN. MNis a world view as is Metaphysical Naturalism that defines the philosophy of science and the relationship to our physical existence. Yes, Methodological Naturalism does tell us that the Laws of Logic/Nature are universally uniform and tests them with processes of investigation. The Difference between the worldview of MN and Metaphysical Naturalism, is that MN does not make nor attempt to falsify Metaphysical questions.

It is not just an 'assertion of belief' as your worldview is, ME does test and verify its world view with processes of investigation.

Shuny again this makes no sense. Do you even know what a precondition is?

"something that must exist or happen before something else can exist or happen"

Yes, the precondition of Naturalist views, both Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism, is that the physical nature of our existence is the physical cause that has always been and always will be uniform and consistent, and the Law of non-contradiction will always hold true. Methodological Naturalism is the world view that develops processes of investigation to test and falsify these 'preconditions. Your world view is simply an assertion of belief and lacks any processes of investigation to test your assertions. Your assertions are nothing more then a statement 'I believe it so.'

Nothing you said even remotely qualifies as a precondition for an intelligible universe, human rationality or the reliability of the senses. God does fulfill this role, Methodological Naturalism can not.

See above. Nothing you said even remotely qualifies as a testable nor falsifiable precondition for an intelligible universe, human rationality or the reliability of the senses. Simply asserting that 'God does fulfill this role.' offers nothing but an bald assertion of belief, nothing more, which is insufficient for an argument for your positions. 'Nature fulfills this role' is a testable falsifiable precondition, your world view is not.

[seer]

False seer, Methodological Naturalism (MN) DOES NOT describe a process of investigation, it is a philosophy of science that defines a worldview. The scientific methods developed over time, based on the falsification of hypothesis and theorems ARE the processes of investigation, based on the philosophy of MN. MNis a world view as is Metaphysical Naturalism that defines the philosophy of science and the relationship to our physical existence. Yes, Methodological Naturalism does tell us that the Laws of Logic/Nature are universally uniform and tests them with processes of investigation. The Difference between the worldview of MN and Metaphysical Naturalism, is that MN does not make nor attempt to falsify Metaphysical questions.

You are missing the point Shuny - no definition Methodological Naturalism tells us what the universe should be like. It does not tell us whether the universe should be intelligible, whether humans should be rational, or even exist. Or whether our senses are reliable. It does not tell us if the laws of logic/nature are actually universal. Methodological Naturalism can only hope to describe what is.

And can you link an accepted definition that states that Methodological Naturalism is a worldview? I could not find one.

Yes, the precondition of Naturalist views, both Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism, is that the physical nature of our existence is the physical cause that has always been and always will be uniform and consistent, and the Law of non-contradiction will always hold true. Methodological Naturalism is the world view that develops processes of investigation to test and falsify these 'preconditions. Your world view is simply an assertion of belief and lacks any processes of investigation to test your assertions. Your assertions are nothing more then a statement 'I believe it so.'

Again Shuny, that is NOT a precondition. And you can not prove universals, you already admitted that - that only God knows if the laws of logic/nature are universal and absolute. It is merely your belief to assert otherwise. So again what is your precondition? And nature can not be a precondition for nature - that makes no sense.

[shunyadragon]

You are missing the point Shuny - no definition Methodological Naturalism tells us what the universe should be like. It does not tell us whether the universe should be intelligible, whether humans should be rational, or even exist. Or whether our senses are reliable. It does not tell us if the laws of logic/nature are actually universal. Methodological Naturalism can only hope to describe what is.

And can you link an accepted definition that states that Methodological Naturalism is a worldview? I could not find one.



Again Shuny, that is NOT a precondition. And you can not prove universals, you already admitted that - that only God knows if the laws of logic/nature are universal and absolute. It is merely your belief to assert otherwise. So again what is your precondition? And nature can not be a precondition for nature - that makes no sense.

Nature can be a precondition just as well as God, unfortunately you lack any verifiable processes of investigation, as Methodological Naturalism has to back up your 'Bald Assertion.'

Your missing the biggest point big time. You have presented absolutely nothing of substance to back up your assertion that 'I believe.' Your precondition 'God did it.' has less support then the Natural 'precondition' 'Nature did it.' We are at an impasse unless you can come up with more of an argument then 'Begging the Question' big time with the 'Bald Assertion' 'God did it.'

[seer]

Nature can be a precondition just as well as God, unfortunately you lack any verifiable processes of investigation, as Methodological Naturalism has to back up your 'Bald Assertion.'

Shuny, first you you have to show how Methodological Naturalism is a worldview. Or agree that it is not a worldview. Then we can move on to your claim about nature.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, first you you have to show how Methodological Naturalism is a worldview. Or agree that it is not a worldview. Then we can move on to your claim about nature.

Done that, and detailed the claim about nature. One thing that you have not done provide any support for your claim about God. So far it is simply a 'Bald Assertion' of Belief, 'Begging the Question Big Time, and nothing more. Still waiting . . .

[JimL]

Jim, again the law of God is not a "whim" for the clear reasons that I gave, His laws are born from His immutable moral character. And the law of God is still objective to humankind - and authoritative.

Well, once again seer, if morals are not objective in and of themselves, regardless of whether God exists or not, then they are not objective. Think about it. If murder is wrong only because God exists, then it is not wrong in and of itself. If God suddenly disappeared, and as goes God so goes his morals, then morals have no objectivity of there own. If right and wrong is subject to God, then murder could just as well be a moral good than a moral evil.

[Tassman]

You are missing the point Shuny - no definition Methodological Naturalism tells us what the universe should be like. It does not tell us whether the universe should be intelligible, whether humans should be rational, or even exist. Or whether our senses are reliable. It does not tell us if the laws of logic/nature are actually universal. Methodological Naturalism can only hope to describe what is.

And can you link an accepted definition that states that Methodological Naturalism is a worldview? I could not find one.



Again Shuny, that is NOT a precondition. And you can not prove universals, you already admitted that - that only God knows if the laws of logic/nature are universal and absolute. It is merely your belief to assert otherwise. So again what is your precondition? And nature can not be a precondition for nature - that makes no sense.

No! YOU

[seer]

Well, once again seer, if morals are not objective in and of themselves, regardless of whether God exists or not, then they are not objective. Think about it. If murder is wrong only because God exists, then it is not wrong in and of itself. If God suddenly disappeared, and as goes God so goes his morals, then morals have no objectivity of there own. If right and wrong is subject to God, then murder could just as well be a moral good than a moral evil.

I did not ever claim Jim that ethics were objective in themselves. But that God's law is objective to humankind and universal. And again - no, murder could NOT be a moral good. Since God does not arbitrarily choose right or wrong - AS I HAVE EXPLAINED.

[seer]

Done that, and detailed the claim about nature. One thing that you have not done provide any support for your claim about God. So far it is simply a 'Bald Assertion' of Belief, 'Begging the Question Big Time, and nothing more. Still waiting . . .

No Shuny, you have offered zero definitions to show that Methodological Naturalism is a worldview like you claimed. I have asked you to provide/link accepted definition that state so. I could not find any. So once again you can not offer a non-theistic worldview that competes with the Biblical worldview. And of course it is an assumption, it is a presuppositional argument after all (to suppose beforehand). And our presupposition accounts for the universal laws of logic/nature, human rationality, an intelligible universe, objective morality, and the reliability of the senses. And the precondition for all these things. You have offered no such worldview nor have you offered a precondition for these conditions.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, you have offered zero definitions to show that Methodological Naturalism is a worldview like you claimed. I have asked you to provide/link accepted definition that state so. I could not find any. So once again you can not offer a non-theistic worldview that competes with the Biblical worldview. And of course it is an assumption, it is a presuppositional argument after all (to suppose beforehand). And our presupposition accounts for the universal laws of logic/nature, human rationality, an intelligible universe, objective morality, and the reliability of the senses. And the precondition for all these things. You have offered no such worldview nor have you offered a precondition for these conditions.

Listen to yourself seer, Mr. Black and you have presented an assertion presuppositional statement of faith. You may claim that this assertion accounts 'for the universal laws of logic/nature, human rationality, an intelligible universe, objective morality, and the reliability of the senses. And the precondition for all these things,' but there is no accompanying argument nor explanation other then 'I believe it so.' There is no coherent argument between the assertion of belief, and the conclusion that it is 'absolutely true,' which represents a classic 'Begging the Question.' I would welcome an independent assessment of an unbiased third party concerning the validity and quality of the claims and arguments of the dialogue in terms of the rules of logic, but so far I am not encouraged by the responses. Still waiting . . .